Fire Mike Eaves?

[Innova]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

It just illustrates what the frustration with Coach Eaves is for Badger fans. He's far from a bad coach. With just a couple more wins plus (god forbid) a couple more ties, (however you want to figure it,) the Badgers have three outright conference titles, (plus two t1st) vs. zero and ending only a tick behind DU for the best average conference finish. Or instead, if those extra wins come in the final five, or the NCAA's, nobody is complaining. The point is that Eaves record while still good, falls short of what we should expect at Wisconsin, which is a record comparable to the best coaches and programs in the country. (Or comparable to Sauer's?)
Will Coach Eaves put together another title winner/contender in the next ten years? Probably. Will Wisconsin hockey remain just outside the elite programs over the next ten years? Probably. What to do... what to do...

I know you were just do a quick and dirty analysis, but if you add 4 wins to the Badger's record over those years, who gets the losses? All non-conference games? All conference teams? It could even improve the average finish more.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Thanks Slap Shot, as I pointed out in the previous post, I was interested in looking at wins/games:

Ties are valuable in hockey and admittedly this skews slightly against Eaves, as has been discussed elsewhere, and the comparison numbers above bear out; Eaves teams have a larger propensity for ties than everyone else on the list.
...

are you taking away losses or ties?

[burd]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

You have to remember also that this is the Badgers we are talking about, and karma will never be good. That has to count for a handful of wins each year.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

are you taking away losses or ties?

Sorry, this seems to be causing some unintended confusion. Here are the above named coaches actual winning percentages.

Mike Eaves 210-163-46 419 games; .556

Jerry York(BC) 880-547-93 1520 games; .610

Jack Parker(BU) 850-444-112 1406 games; .644

Red Berenson(MI) 728-339-73 1140 games; .671

Jeff Sauer(WI) 489-306-46 841 games; .609

Doug Woog(MN) 390-188-40 618 games; .663

Bob Johnson(WI) 367-175-23 565 games; .670

George Gwozdecky(DU) 311-195-40 546 games; .606

Don Lucia(MN) 318-171-54 543 games; .635

Enrico Blasi(Miami) 262-169-46 477 games; .597

Dean Blais(ND) 262-115-34 411 games; .679

Tom Serratore(Bemidji) 198-169-43 410 games; .535

Dave Hakstol(ND) 187-93-27 307 games; .653


In my original post I simply observed that with a sweep by Denver this weekend, Eaves Badger's will potentially have WON less than 50% of their starts. It discounts completely ties or losses, only referencing how many times they took the ice and subsequently left it with a WIN. That does not make Eaves a less than .500 coach. He has a .556 win percentage.

The subsequent post compares Eaves record extrapolated to the same number of games as these other coaches. In other words, based on the past 11 years how would Eaves record compare to these other coaches if he coached the same number of games? I showed that because me saying Eaves has a .556 win percentage, and Sauer had a .609, and Serratore has a .535, and Badger Bob had a .670, all says something, but not in a specific way as to what it really means. You can look at the W-L-T comparison and hopefully see something more specific.
Lastly, I observed that on average, Eaves wins 4 less games/season than the other coaches average as a group. Then simply point out how that would have theoretically affected the Badgers conference standings over the last 11 years. (assuming conference wins)

It all is just trying to illustrate a comparison between Eaves and other elite, long-tenured coaches.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

I know you were just do a quick and dirty analysis, but if you add 4 wins to the Badger's record over those years, who gets the losses? All non-conference games? All conference teams? It could even improve the average finish more.

EXACTLY!! You are right on the money. My quick numbers would assume that those wins came only against teams that already finished lower than WI, (which is probably not even possible) So maybe the Badgers have FIVE outright conference titles? Most likely they at least pass DU for #1 average finish.

It also illustrates the small difference between being elite and being just on the cusp of it. The coaches/programs I used are at the very top. But, I guess, that's who Wisconsin should be measuring themselves against, isn't it? No disrespect to Serratore who has done an excellent job, but don't we feel with Wisconsin's advantages, we should be doing better than just barely outpacing Bemidji and trailing Miami?

I want those 3 or 4 or 5 extra wins every year.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Sorry, this seems to be causing some unintended confusion. Here are the above named coaches actual winning percentages.

In my original post I simply observed that with a sweep by Denver this weekend, Eaves Badger's will potentially have WON less than 50% of their starts. It discounts completely ties or losses, only referencing how many times they took the ice and subsequently left it with a WIN. That does not make Eaves a less than .500 coach. He has a .556 win percentage.

The subsequent post compares Eaves record extrapolated to the same number of games as these other coaches. In other words, based on the past 11 years how would Eaves record compare to these other coaches if he coached the same number of games? I showed that because me saying Eaves has a .556 win percentage, and Sauer had a .609, and Serratore has a .535, and Badger Bob had a .670, all says something, but not in a specific way as to what it really means. You can look at the W-L-T comparison and hopefully see something more specific.
Lastly, I observed that on average, Eaves wins 4 less games/season than the other coaches average as a group. Then simply point out how that would have theoretically affected the Badgers conference standings over the last 11 years. (assuming conference wins)

It all is just trying to illustrate a comparison between Eaves and other elite, long-tenured coaches.

So you're adding 8 points their finish, meaning you're replacing 4 losses with 4 wins (extremely flawed). That's changing 14% of the conference games, not to mention, I would think it would be better to add 5/6 points assuming one of the wins was an upgrade over a tie, another was non-conference whether playoffs or NC. You can't just say other coaches win an average of 4 more games than Eaves and then ignore more ties all-together and expect any of us to think your math makes sense. Not to mention the fact that giving UW 8 more points means the other 9-11 teams have 8 less points, which changes standings...where does it change standings?

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

I think the GPL guys summed it up best during their podcast with Jess Myers after the Gopher vs Badger series.

Wisconsin hockey fans, in general, are not knowledgable, passionate hockey fans. Jess's story about a Badger fan screaming at the Badgers to "shoot, the net is open" on a delayed penalty on the Badgers was PURE GOLD.

Badger Hockey was popular during the 70's and 80's because Badger Football and Basketball were brutal. They aren't anymore, and Badger Hockey is becoming more and more irrelevant in Madison.

You guys are high if you think Barry cares about Badger hockey under-performing when a majority of people in the state of Wisconsin probably couldn't care less as long as football and basketball are performing.

Congratulations, your school's indifference towards hockey is beginning to rival that of Ohio State, and it's because (like in Ohio) the majority of your state's residents are indifferent as well.

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Wisconsin hockey fans, in general, are not knowledgable, passionate hockey fans.

Well duh, that's because they aren't from Minnesota.

[JDUBBS1280]

Well duh, that's because they aren't from Minnesota.

There are knowledgable, passionate hockey fanbases outside of Minnesota, and some not so passionate fan bases inside Minnesota. Wisconsin's fan base isn't knowledgable or passionate for the sport (again, in general) and it has nothing to do with the state of Minnesota. And I'm hardly the only person who feels that way (note the podcast I referenced).

That's why I think this sense of entitlement is pretty laughable.

[Badger Booster]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

I think the GPL guys summed it up best during their podcast with Jess Myers after the Gopher vs Badger series.

Wisconsin hockey fans, in general, are not knowledgable, passionate hockey fans. Jess's story about a Badger fan screaming at the Badgers to "shoot, the net is open" on a delayed penalty on the Badgers was PURE GOLD.

Badger Hockey was popular during the 70's and 80's because Badger Football and Basketball were brutal. They aren't anymore, and Badger Hockey is becoming more and more irrelevant in Madison.

You guys are high if you think Barry cares about Badger hockey under-performing when a majority of people in the state of Wisconsin probably couldn't care less as long as football and basketball are performing.

Congratulations, your school's indifference towards hockey is beginning to rival that of Ohio State, and it's because (like in Ohio) the majority of your state's residents are indifferent as well.

Even as a Minnesota native who grew up following my high school team and the North Stars before going to school at Wisconsin, I feel confident saying you are textbook reason people tend to dislike Gopher fans.

Even within the "State of Hockey", Gopher hockey is slotted under the Vikings, Twins, Timberwolves, Wild, Gopher basketball and the Lynx to the average Minnesota sports fan.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

So you're adding 8 points their finish, meaning you're replacing 4 losses with 4 wins (extremely flawed). That's changing 14% of the conference games, not to mention, I would think it would be better to add 5/6 points assuming one of the wins was an upgrade over a tie, another was non-conference whether playoffs or NC. You can't just say other coaches win an average of 4 more games than Eaves and then ignore more ties all-together and expect any of us to think your math makes sense. Not to mention the fact that giving UW 8 more points means the other 9-11 teams have 8 less points, which changes standings...where does it change standings?

How dare you poke holes in my math! I'll have you know I completed the 4th grade and everything!

Of course, setting that aside, I agree with you almost completely. I'm too lazy to figure the permutations, (because it gets complicated, as you state) but just adding 5/6 pts. as you suggest (maybe 2 wins plus 1 or two converted ties, three ties converted plus one win, etc.) would give the Badgers either 1st or t1st in three seasons. (assuming zero pts lost by other top team.)

8 pts., with 0 pts. lost by the other top teams, would give them 1st or t1st in 5 seasons. Again, that may not be possible without taking pts. from the other top teams in all cases. I agree that's not as likely a scenario. However both those situations do assume never winning one more or converting any tie against the other top teams.

Also to your last point about where it changes the standings, again you're correct in that it doesn't address that. It is only comparing a hypothetical situation of the Badgers winning a few more conference games, against what has actually transpired in the conference. I'm not trying to state factual cases for where the Badgers (or anybody else) would have definitely finished, but simply point out that those few games won/lost/tied each year are a large part of the difference from where the Badgers are, and where they should be. It is not easy to win those few more games, but that is, over time, what separates the top from the near top/middle.


What would Eaves record look like with 4 more wins/year? Probably something like 254-131-34 for a .606 winning percentage. Oddly, exactly the same as Gwozdecky, nearly the same a Sauer.

EDIT: Actually, in thinking about it, if WI converted much more than 1 tie/year it would skew Eaves record the other way and he have far fewer ties than everybody. Realistically the 4 wins would generally have to be 3 converted losses and one converted tie. But who's counting.

[Timothy A]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

I think the GPL guys summed it up best during their podcast with Jess Myers after the Gopher vs Badger series.

Wisconsin hockey fans, in general, are not knowledgable, passionate hockey fans. Jess's story about a Badger fan screaming at the Badgers to "shoot, the net is open" on a delayed penalty on the Badgers was PURE GOLD.

Badger Hockey was popular during the 70's and 80's because Badger Football and Basketball were brutal. They aren't anymore, and Badger Hockey is becoming more and more irrelevant in Madison.

You guys are high if you think Barry cares about Badger hockey under-performing when a majority of people in the state of Wisconsin probably couldn't care less as long as football and basketball are performing.

Congratulations, your school's indifference towards hockey is beginning to rival that of Ohio State, and it's because (like in Ohio) the majority of your state's residents are indifferent as well.

Gotta love the one shoe fits all generalization about knowledge and passion here. The rest of this post there is plenty of truth to.

[JDUBBS1280]

Gotta love the one shoe fits all generalization about knowledge and passion here. The rest of this post there is plenty of truth to.

Of course it's a generalization. I admitted as much. I am sure there are some very knowledgable, passionate UW Hockey fans. It is just a widely held perception of the Badger Hockey fan base. When Jess Myers is laughing about it, it says something.

Not trying to ruffle feathers, and I realize I was rather blunt, but I just don't understand the sense of entitlement or agree with it.

I don't see any reason why UW should be above periods like this when the school's own administration and fan base (again, in general) don't care as much about the sport as they do football or basketball.

Again, see Ohio State. I think they should expect or feel entitled to success about as much as Wisconsin moving forward.

History is just that. History. Priorities have changed at UW.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Of course it's a generalization. I admitted as much. I am sure there are some very knowledgable, passionate UW Hockey fans. It is just a widely held perception of the Badger Hockey fan base. When Jess Myers is laughing about it, it says something.

Not trying to ruffle feathers, and I realize I was rather blunt, but I just don't understand the sense of entitlement or agree with it.

I don't see any reason why UW should be above periods like this when the school's own administration and fan base (again, in general) don't care as much about the sport as they do football or basketball.

Again, see Ohio State. I think they should expect or feel entitled to success about as much as Wisconsin moving forward.

History is just that. History. Priorities have changed at UW.

The difference between Ohio State and Wisconsin is obvious...history and tradition. Wisconsin has a reputation of being a good program that always has a chance at finishing near the top of the WCHA and making a run in the NCAA playoffs. That hasn't panned out lately and I think that has more to do with early departure syndrome finally catching up with the Badgers. It hit the Gophers for a stretch and Don seems to be rebounding from that now...Eaves is still getting there I think. Now do I think Eaves should do better than he has with what he's had...yes, should he be replaced? I don't and honestly once they're out of the WCHA, I won't really care.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Wisconsin dropped their program for 30 years, so excuse me if I don't buy into the "history and tradition" factor.

Yes, the had some success in years past, but if you put aside National Titles and look at conference hardware, it's much less impressive. They have certainly capitalized on opportunities, but they aren't in my Top 10 schools when I think of history and tradition. And their fan base is part of that.

That said, winning in the past means little IMO. Priorities have changed at UW. Football and basketball no longer suck. Badger Hockey is no longer the convenient distraction from the fact that their football and basketball programs weren't winning. As such, people care far less about Badger Hockey.

Moving forward I think we'll see Wisconsin's priorities to hockey mirror more-and-more closely what you see at Ohio State.